June 11, 2026 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM
And i'll The public announcement too, please. Of course. Welcome to the AMATS Technical Advisory Committee meetings. Public comments are welcome and encouraged with three minutes given to each speaker. After the committee discusses each item, members of the public will be invited to comment. Housekeeping items For virtual attendees, please keep the camera off unless you are speaking. For those attending by phone, please press star six. To mute or unmute yourself. AMATS committee meetings are audio recorded and posted on the AMATS YouTube page. Thank you. Okay, Aaron. Next item is the approval of the agenda. Do we have an motion for approving the assembly? Move do approve. Second. Moved by member Boland. Second by member. Are there any changes needed to the agenda? Go ahead. I'd like to add an action item, which would be five D, bringing a letter of support for discretionary grant, application for consideration.
Okay. Move by Member White. Seconded by Member Bowland. Add item five D. Discretionary grant application letter. Who seconded. Member Blunt. Thank you. Are there any discussion on that? Any objections to that amendment? Okay, hearing no objections, that amendment is incorporated into the motion to approve the agenda. Are there any other changes needed to the agenda? Okay, hearing none. Is there any, are there any opposed to approving the agenda as amended? Okay. Hearing none. The agenda as amended. As approved. Next is the meeting minutes, previous meeting minutes. We have a motion for approving the May 7th, 2020. 2026. Meeting minutes. I'll make a motion to approve. Okay. Moved by Member White. A second? Second by Member Rudolph, are there any changes that are needed to the minutes?
Big sigh of relief over there? It sounds like there aren't any. Are there any objections to approving the minutes hearing? None of the May 7th, 20, 26 minutes are approved. Now onto our action items. Item five A, the AMATS funding program TIP Admin Mod number seven. Is this yours Aaron? Yes. And I'd like to note Terry's only. Okay. The records show that member Umatum joined at oh 4:00 PM Just a second. So this is my item. So we have before us TIP Admin Mod number seven. No, I won't mention if this is the last one we have since every time I mention that we have another one. So we have one before you. A few changes. First we have some changes to HSIP projects. We have the gamble street utility pole removal and increased lighting. So it's adding design funding and FY 26 for 750,000. With the VRU code, the total project cost is increased by the 750,000.
So this was a change that was captured in admin mod number five. But when updating amendment four to reflect admin mod five, I missed it. That's why we typically don't like doing amendments in admin mods at the same time because it's really easy to miss these things. So basically what happened, amendment four was out for public comment. While it was up for public comment, we were making changes on admin mod five. So admin mod five got approved and then the idea was to incorporate all the changes from admin mod five into amendment four. But a couple items were missed and those are before you today. Next item is Gambell & Ingra Street overhead signal indication upgrades. So this one was separating out the design funding from the utilities construction funding in FY 26 and updating the fund code to the HSIP. Again, this was one that was supposed to be updated as part of that amendment.
Four final approval and I missed it. And then Tudor road Baxter to Patterson chant street Channelization. This is not one that was missed. This is a new one. There's a small increase. $293,000 is needed for this based on the latest estimate increase from P, the P, S and E, not PM&E. I apologize for that confusion. We have it corrected for the policy committee memo next table nine and I see the error there for where it says table eight for the following projects. We'll update that for the agenda as well. There were a couple of changes requested by the public transportation department for the municipality Anchorage based on their recently approved split letter. And so we have for the preventative maintenance, capital maintenance 53 0 7, there was a $2.75 million increase in FY 26, the fleet replacement expansion 5307. There was a $1.954 million increase in FY 25.
The fleet improvements, not flea improvements, we'll change that as well or it's already changed. Increase the FY 25 funding by 786,000 and then the bus and bus facility program for 5339. There was an increase in the FY 25 funding and an FY 26 funding for a total of $288,000 increase. So these changes are before you as they meet the threshold for admin mod staff's recommendation is to recommend to the policy committee approval. As a reminder, these do not have to go out for public comment. Now there is one additional change that was brought to staff after we posted it, so I'll try and make sure I get this without confusing anyone too bad. It's for the Gambell overhead signal work. It is just changing it to where we are removing the AC from the fund code. So it'll all be HSIP funding. There will be no AC for that particular project. So that is a recommendation that has come forward for DOT staff supports that recommendation masks your support for it today. You can do it either as part of the main motion or as an amendment to the main motion, however you would like if you are interested. Thank you. Okay, thank you Aaron. Are there any questions or comments from the committee?
One question that I have that traffic engineering department is looking at a network analyst to support our traffic operations center, traffic Control Traffic management center, which is CMAQ project CMAQ 12. Anyway, it's one that we're just thinking about and it it fits. Fits within this. Are there available funds for being able to do that? Is that something that was thinking about it more for the MTP but then as we had a quick email this morning, I know it's kinda last minute you had brought up potentially having it be something that could happen with this hip amendment admin mod. Is there funds to be able to add some in that? Yes. So we would add it in as STBG, surface Transportation block grant, not the CMAQ because the CMAQ wouldn't be eligible for that. But the STBG would be just as a cautionary. We typically don't like funding staff positions with tip funding where we can help it because it is subject to change at any time by the policy committee.
And so just kind of keep that in mind if you're willing to accept the risks and of course everybody supports it. I don't see any reason why we wouldn't be able to do that. You'll have to come up with a match for it. However that's done. So just as a reminder there and we need to make sure that it's below the threshold for amendment versus admin mod. So how much are you looking at doing? I think per year it would be 170,000 about. Okay. That would fall definitely below the threshold for admin mod amendment. So it would be an admin mod. So it can be done today if there is interest in support. We also are pretty short on the fiscal year, so getting an obligated in time is risky at this point we're still waiting for amendment number four to be approved and until that is approved, kind of everything's on hold.
And so just keep that in mind that even if it gets approved today by the TAC and then the policy committee next week, it could take a month and or more to get through the final approval. And that puts us at the last like July, almost August and we're already, so maybe it's not, we might not make it. I'll, I'll be honest with you, we may not make it at this point. My recommendation would be if you're able to wait until the 2027 TIP, Admin Mod number one and then have the discussion because there'll be a lot more time. 'cause we're anticipating doing the first one in October and November or yeah, October, November whenever the new program is approved. That's great. Okay, any other questions or comments from the committee? Are there any comments from the public on this item?
Sorry, Mark Eisenman, DOT Planner, building off of what Aaron was saying about adding the funding for your position for this fiscal year. Since the fiscal year is almost over, you probably wouldn't need the full 120,000 'cause that program's gonna end right and then we'll start a new program. Probably have to in place for the traffic control signalization by March of next year. So just
Just remove it. All we're gonna do is just take out the AC portion of it and then update the the match requirement as well for it to remove the ac. Okay. So moved by Member Kohlhaas, seconded of a Member Keegan. So that cover everything that you've presented? Yes. Okay. Is there any discussion or amendments? No. No. We'll wait on our, I was thinking of it really more for the MTP. So I hearing no additional discussion or items. Are there any objections to approving the motion hearing? No objections. That motion is approved. And we'll move on then to item five B, the AMATS transportation plan or MTP 2052. I'm assuming that's Rhiannon. Yep. Okay, go for it.
Thank you. Rhiannon Brown, I'm a senior planner with AMATS. And before you I have the draft project list for the 2052 MTP as well as the fiscal assumptions to give some background, we are doing a minor update at this time. So with that minor update, the project lists were developed by pulling over approved projects from Complete Streets and Non-motorized lists of the 2050, pulling in all that were still relevant. We've also added projects based on the work session that we had on May 18th with both committees. And then we also have the transit and rail project list that were provided by those agencies. So before you, within the memo we have draft project list within it, I think there was a little bit of confusion. So the or the headers are leading to a little bit of confusion. So the short term is considered the TIP years, that's 26 through 30 midterm is actually what we refer to short term and the remaining revenue. And those are gonna be updated for the policy committee to, to smooth that out across the board. So on the front of this you have the project cost for the drug project list and then on the backside we have the remaining revenue. This is similar to what you saw during the work session, providing information on who has what funding available after. And again, here's calling it budget, but I've updated it to say revenue for the policy because I consistent appreciate that, I appreciate that.
So we have our project list, those were, like I said, put together jointly by the entities and pulled forward for determining the year of expenditure for these projects in the list. They're listed under 2026 in 2026 dollars. And then we imply we apply inflation to the projects. So in that short term period, up to past the TIP from 2030 to 2041, 4.5% inflation is applied to the projects. And then after that, for the long term it's 3.5% for the revenue. We got those numbers based on historic information and again, information provided by the the agencies themselves. And for those revenues we use a 2.5, 2.4% inflation for those. So inflation is applied, revenue inflation is applied and then that, that amount is taken from the projects for that year and then the remaining funding is pulled into the next year. So what you have on the back, the remaining revenue is what we have based on these draft projects in front of you.
With that being said, after we posted the draft project list, we discovered a few projects that were duplicated and also did not make the list. So I do have a few updates just to verbally go through with you all. So four of the projects are based on the PEL thought that they had, we had already reviewed but we had missed them. So starting with complete streets, we need to include the 16th Avenue extension as well as the Port of Alaska freight study. Together it's about $11.5 million. And with that change, the DOT would now have 138 million in the short term.
So that those are the only two changes from the complete streets side of things. For the non-motorized side, we have the Hyder project in here, but ours is from 15th to fifth and the pill has additional boundaries. They have a south project that's Chester Creek to 15th and then a north project that's ninth to Ship Creek. So we do need to include those which are about 30 million, which would mean we need to move 30 million out of the long term and out of the short. So 30 million from the short term into the long term and out of the long term to not program. I hope that makes sense. So to do that for the non-motorized, we are simply taking the lowest scoring projects in each list. So line 57 through 90 would be moving from short term to long term. And then, sorry, 57 to 90 will be moving to long term and then 97 to 114 will move from long term to not programmed. So again, that will free up the 30 million that's needed for these two heder two B, two C from the project. And it's on the
Non-motorized list? Yes. The non-motorized list for those additionally two projects were duplicated. They were in the complete streets as well as the non-motorized projects. And those are the Muldoon and the Downtown Transit Centers. So those are being removed from the non-motorized, they'll be kept in the complete streets and those are captured within the TIP years. So it doesn't adjust funding in any way on this sheet. So, so I can answer any questions about those movements. I know there are additional changes that need to be made from information that was passed after or given to me after these were posted. So I'm happy to answer any questions, provide me information, but ultimately the floor is open for discussion. Thank you. Oh, sorry, my ask. So we're asking the technical advisory committee to review the project list and the fiscal assumptions and re recommend to the policy committee. Thank you.
So I can go through each of the items. So taking 30 million roughly, it's actually 30.8 million out of the short term projects, starting with the lowest scoring ones. So I'll start at the very top. Starting on line 57, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 79, 80, 81, 83, 87 and 90. Those are pretty much all the ones between 57 that say short term, correct? Yes. I just wanted to make sure we get the exact number. So if everybody's looking at 'em, they know which ones we're talking about. Are there any other questions or comments for,
Mr. Chair? I have a couple proposed changes. Okay. I'd like to present, let's see on Lake Otis line item number 144, that is at the 20th Avenue Channelization, I would like to propose to either redirect those funds or move it to the larger projects line line item number 145 called let the bar to Northern ninth Boulevard one four and 145, oh excuse me, 145. But my, my larger consideration that I'd like to present is changing that project to a road diet instead of increasing capacity. And I have a rough order scope of work cost, not scope of work, but a rough order cost of 30 million. It's shown as something like 18 million now. So if we were to move the 3 million from 144 to 145, 121, if we're needing to be constrained, you know, my other idea is to remove the 42nd Avenue project, which is a local roadway and not necessarily considered regionally significant to be within the MTP. What's the project number for that one? That one's number one 30. Okay. And that has around 6 million. So I'm trying to get it closer, but, but the bigger ask is to consider the scope change of, instead of increasing capacity and changing it to a road diet.
Yeah, 145 is AMATS funding. So if you're gonna shift things around, you have to focus on just the AMATS. So the ones with the AMATS tag next to it. Right. So right now we are actually over in the short term but under in the long term. So adding another 12 ish million to a project, we don't have the capacity that unless we remove something else that's AMATS funded in the short term, most of the projects in the short term are projects that are in the TIP right now that we've committed to or in the 2027 through 2030 TIP that we've committed to. I don't think we have any problem with changing it to a road diet, but we would just need to know if there are other projects that you guys are okay with moving out in order to do that increase.
I, I think the other thing to just note is, you know, even though we're looking at a different, you know, an updated estimate of 30 million, whether that is more accurate than 18 million, it's really not changing the project so much because we're not, we're actually looking to use what we have in that corridor and work from the site in. So I don't know if 18 million might be a good enough number for now until we have more clarity and maybe in the future we can refine that number. So maybe it might, maybe my, I will retract my ask of changing the cost at this time and present the idea of a change in scope.
Road diet, whatever we wanna, I don't know what our terminology is new that. Yes. And then also make sure that the 20th avenue, it already talks about, let's see, hold on short to left turn from Lake Otis onto 20th to we would, you know, we might wanna update the description to also include movements at the 20th Avenue intersection to cover that 20th Avenue Channelization. So right,
So that was one ask. And then my next one is focused on the corridor study on 36th Avenue. So line item 137 and it's just to be consistent on the termi between the corridor study and then the project that's also associated in the future. On line item 125, just 36th Avenue Spenard to Lake Otis Parkway headquarters study limits only go from Spenard to Denali and my requested change is to change Denali to Lake Oaks Parkway pair with corridor project, the Complete Street project taking the limits consistent,
That's an opportunity could be to lines 23 and 24 are fifth Avenue signals and lightings, since we already have a complete street project for portions of fifth and sixth Avenue in the plan, it might be an opportunity to either reduce those a little or move them out entirely. So. So just something to think about. So 137 is only 250,000 studies that take out 20 million. Well that could be for the lake, not the study. The study could be covered by just a couple hundred thousand dollars for the term I changed. That wouldn't be a problem. Oh for the lake. I'll just Parkway one. Yeah, if there's a desire to increase the cost of Lake Otis Parkway, that might be an opportunity to look at some projects that are existing in there that can be moved out
But if there's a desire for the other one you mentioned was the Spenard to Lake Otis for the corridor study on 36th Avenue. Right. Making sure I don't, updating the termin is not a problem. It's pretty easy to do and we just have to add maybe 250,000 more to it to get that extra little bit and that's easily accommodated in the program.
I have some changes to the railroad list. Line two, the Preventative Maintenance 5307, I'd like to zero that out. Line six, Bridge Rehabilitation 5307, I'd like to change that to 3,750,000, line 10 Preventative Maintenance. 5337, 499,208. Line 11 Bridge Rehabilitation 5337, I'd like to change that to 1,550,000. And then lines 14 &15 the Facility Rehab and Technology Infrastructure. Those with zero out. That's just truing up funding.
There. Questions and comments from the committee? The one that I'll mention is line item 54 on the complete streets is where it has the traffic control. Signalization 54 55 and that's, and then 56 is, well that's where adding in additional costs for these are covering two positions right now. So it'd be a third position. So how much 175 to pay a month, By Year
Yeah, I'm thinking about that. I think it's basically by 50% positions they're covering now. That would be third position as as about it would be, okay we'll have to peculate how much that is overall and see if we need to make any adjustments to moving a project in or out to cover that increase since we capture, you know, what's in the current tip short term and then long term it's gonna be, it's gonna be amount of money. We'll just figure out what it's okay. Other questions or comments from the committee? Are there any public comments being no public comments? What is the will of the committee? We could incorporate in these in the motion or we could make a motion and amend and which is probably a little simpler but we're gonna have
Sounds good. And just so you know, you can group the railroad changes or the transit changes. You can, like the railroad can all be one amendment. The transit can all be one amendment. You don't have to do an amendment for each change that you want to do. Just as a reminder so we don't have to have 25 amendments by the time we're done we can set a record to Yeah, yeah. Oh my fingers will be flying. Okay. I entertain a motion
Is there a second? Second Motion by Member Rudolph, Seconded by Member Kohlhaas to remove transit project 13 to 17. Any discussion on that? Are there any opposed to that? That amendment okay? Hearing none that amendment is incorporated into the motion. Okay, let's go the railroad, you've got simple ones too as well. Yeah.
Sorry, I can repeat all this discussed if you need, lemme here. Okay, move to amend for PME, well not PE projects. So to remove line item 144 as much of the work is already can be incorporated in project identified as line item 145 and to change the scope of project line item 145 Lake Otis Parkway complete street projects to bar to Northern Lights Boulevard to change the scope from increasing capacity to a road diet. Next I also want to, within that amendment, take a termini change on line item 137 to change three sixth Avenue corridor study Spenard to, let's see, lake Otis parkway instead of Denali
And they're on the same page so that makes it a little easier to see. Okay. A motion by member Kohlhase. We have a second. Okay. Seconded by Member White. Are there any discussion on that? Did you want to change the scope of 144 to include intersection improvements at 20th Avenue?
You good with that? Yep. Okay. So as far as like language and exactly how that scope wording, that's something that staff can, yeah, we'll keep it really basic. Just say include intersection improvements at 20th Avenue and what we can do is in the, in the MTP is if it's approved by the policy committee we would remove 144. But we can keep a note in there about, you know, this was to cover this language change was to cover this particular project and we can keep that info there so we, we don't lose that information that was provided to us by the public. So when it comes time to do the project, we can provide it to the project team and say this was originally envisioned, what can you do to incorporate this into the scope of this new project. So with those changes that you mentioned, do you also want the cost as if the cost changed at
So leave the 250,000 for the three 6,000 prospect and I can get considered later. Would that make, does that have any complications? If it's, I mean should we just at double it at this point? Because that's probably, it would probably be good because we're adding term nine to it so it does change the cost of that project a little, what the final amount's gonna come out to. We'll update it when we get to the tip but we know it's gonna be an increase. So I mean you could even do a hundred thousand dollars and it would cover it unless anybody's like, oh it'll be more than that. But you could just ask for a hundred thousand increase and we'll cover that in the program. That's
Because we do in short term and then the long term would be the actual project itself. Yeah. Okay. Hey Ben, are you okay with those changes? That funding increases by a hundred thousand to 380,000 and the timeline changed to short term. Yep. Okay, so that funding amendment in into your motion. Right. Any other discussion on the amendments? Can I ask,
That's a good idea. I guess just clarify that this amendment, particular amendment is, we're talking about the Complete Streets project list. So somebody's like line 144 doesn't exist on XY&Z. So we were talking about the complete streets list. Thank you. Clarity. Okay. Another discussion.
I had one another very friendly amendment consideration there on line 145 in terms of how the, the change in languages are read, maybe deleting increased capacity from the scope of work, but not saying specifically road diet, maybe say evaluate lane reduction and lane reconfiguration is something just kind of just in general how, how scope language usually works in case
Amendment to the motion for the amendment. Other discussion on the amendment? Are there any opposed to the amendment? Okay, hearing none, that amendment is incorporated into the motion again that's on the big street project list each. 13, 137, 144, 145. Thank you. Okay, are there any other amendments? Yeah, we had some changes for what we talked about for the Pell project. That's right. Two complete streets and two non-motorized that Right. So I would entertain a motion that the 16th avenue extension you said and then the port, the port freight study need to go under study streets, port Port Creek, port freight study. So moved. Can I do that? Can I hit the easy button like that? Yep. Okay. Alright. Okay, moved by Member Bowland. Seconded by Member Dueber to incorporate the 16th Avenue extension and port freight study into the Complete Streets project list. Do you need any more details on that or is that sufficient? Okay, any discussion on those?
Are there any opposed to that amendment? Okay hearing none of those two projects are added to the Complete Streets project to our motion anyway. And then the other question I would entertain then is the draft non-motorized project list to include two additions to the Hyder street Western Creek to 50th Avenue and from fifth Avenue to Ship Creek Trail. Did I get those right? That's the details on the projects provided by the PEL there. Anybody like to make that amendment? So moved. Member White. Do we have a second That Who? Who moved? Member White. Thank you. And do we have a second? I guess Member Bowland said two I I'll second. I also try to say so best enough. Okay. Member Bowland, any more discussion on this? Can you reiterate it? So the reason is is the PEL termini is different than what we have for the project right now.
So do you want us to update everything to be consistent with what the PEL has? The reason I ask our Hyder Street project goes from 15th to fifth. The PEL has it 15th to ninth. If we update in the MTP, we're also gonna have to update it in the tip. So I just wanna make sure everybody's clear that it's fine, we'll just need them noted as staff that we'll have to update it with the next amendment for the 27 through 30, it's the longer termini. Are we able to start a portion of it with MTP as, I mean I'm sure that's not ideal, but I mean that a more conservative, from a technical standpoint, your terminis need to match between your MTP and TIP.
So I mean I, I guess the question is, is this extending the current hyder pedestrian Boulevard from fifth or from Ship Creek all the way to Chester Creek, the full thing? Or is it adding like stages of the project where you've got from Ship Creek to 15th or Chester Creek, I mean the 15th and then fifth to Ship Creek and maybe a ninth to fifth begins to have like four different portions and then you've got alignment with the 15th to ninth. The other ones, do you have thoughts on just more cing? I mean it is usually complex but it's similar to what you guys do with roadway projects, I think where you do kind of like a large termini like on the Seward Highway and then you chunk it into phases. Right. And honestly looking at how that part of our network works, the 15th to ninth is the simplest.
When you go from ninth to fifth you've got the major street crossings that probably are looking at a different sort of signals or some other treatments. So it is a different nature. And when you go from fifth to Ship Creek, again some that's like its own project for sure with Memphis have and I guess south of 15th is kind of projects too, so I could see them being all separate. I would recommend separate because it makes it clear for the public what's gonna happen. It makes it clearer for us. We can adjust it later if there's an issue we have, we have time so it's okay. But I would recommend we separate it out into those four that you list and update the cost estimate and then also have it to where we move out the projects that we listed earlier to make for that.
So that would also then mean the Hydrr pedestrian Boulevard on our TIP, which is items 14 and 15 non-motorized list would get adjusted from 15th to ninth that it aligns with the TIP. Then we'd have a ninth to fifth, a fifth to Ship Creek and a Chester Creek 15th of three other separate project. Fifth are I I'm okay with that. You're okay with that motions? Okay, sure. So that friendly amendment was adopted by members White and Bowland who? The motion and the, or the amendment and the friendly and the Second amendment. So it's, it'll be four projects. So I can just reiterate. So it'll be the 15th to Chester is the southern portion, then there'll be the 15th to ninth, which is what the 10th. We'll have to update the tip to reflect that. And then there'll be ninth to fifth and then fifth to Ship Creek.
Okay. Those are the three pro, those are the four projects we'll add in there. And weren't you saying the TIP already has it? Yes, it does and we'll have to just update, we'll have to get it with the next amendment. So we'll just need to make sure if the policy committee approves it once the MTPs approved then we can go ahead and update the TIP. So the tip need to be updated or does it already have the ninth? The TIP is the 15th to fifth. But you're gonna do that as a separate project and we typically specifically call out projects in the tip based on their, so if we update it to 15th to ninth and the fee, we'll have to update the one in the tip. We can probably, what we can do is separate it out into two projects in the tip. So you can still keep 'em in there. We'll just need to update it into the termini. So we got it. Do you mind pointing me to where that is in the TIP? Just real quick. It'll be in the non-motorized table. It's on the 27 through 30 TIP. Is that the one you're looking at? Okay. That one has not been approved at this point. So we're still waiting. So we can't make any changes until that's done. And then once we get our amendment process going, we'll update the higher object if this is approved. Okay.
Any more discussion on that amendment? I guess guess question is if the TIP does have 15th to fifth, I mean that could all be done as one. So rather than have to go amend it, I was thinking you were saying it was through ninth to 15th is what I thought that you had said What was in the TIP? No, what's in the TIP is 15th to fifth. Okay. So do we want to just have that be the one project that becomes three instead of four? Well, I mean you were just talking about the fact that the ninth to fifth portion is gonna be much more complicated. It will be a little bit more complicated. So it may make it easier to get something quick, have it be the 15th to ninth, get it done and then have a little bit more time on the ninth to fifth. Okay. We could look at, you know, as we design grouping all four of them together so there's consistency with the design team. So we're not, there's some efficiencies there and it's just how we stage it. Okay. Sounds good. So any more discussion on that item? Are there any opposed to proving that amendment three, none that amendment is approved is incorporated into the motion for the Hyder project on the non-motorized plan and non-motorized stable?
26. Okay. And those are duplicates so they just need to be removed? Yes. Okay. Which who? It was Bowland and then Ben's seconded. Okay. Do we have any discussion on those? Those are some big dollar amounts there. Does that mess with the fiscal constraint there? For the non-motorized? It doesn't. Okay. Because they were part of our TIP years. So our TIP years are kind of its own self-contained bubble, so so duplicate, but we weren't double counting the numbers. Yeah. Okay. I opposed to that amendment. Okay. That amendment is approved and incorporated in.
I guess the other one that I would entertain is to, on the complete streets list, adjust the traffic control signalization, which is 54, 55, 56 to increase by 50% of those three items, which would allow instead of two positions a third that would support work in that. Anyone willing to make that motion for me? So moved. (Member Kohlhaas) Okay. Second, seconded by Member Rudolph, any discussion on that? Was the percentage increase to it was 54 50. It's 170 5K per year. So we'll figure out what the total amounts are and we'll figure out whether that pushes us over our fiscal analysis or, so just heads up, if it causes us to have to get a lot of money from somewhere, we'll have to point it out to the policy committee and see what they wanna do. That's total.
What we would do is basically go in there and say, okay, 54 I think is the current one in the tip in maybe the 23 through 26. Sorry, I don't have it in front of Oh, gotcha. Okay. We'd have to figure out per year, so it's times four years. So however much that is and then we'd have to do the next one for the short term, figure out how much it is for that entire period from 2031 to 2041 and then do the same thing for 2042 to 2052. See how much those total are, see if it's above and beyond what we could absorb in the program. I suspect it is. Yeah. And so we'll have to have a discussion.
I just dunno how much it's, that's for those, those signal fifth signalization projects might about. Yeah, it could be some flexibility with the scopes of those projects and some of it'll be covered under others and see if they can adjust it a little and free up some funding. So we'll take a look at it as staff and we can bring a recommendation to the policy committee forward on how to fund it there. Discussion on that. Who seconded? Thank you to that motion amendment. Okay, that amendment is also incorporated in, are there any other, go ahead.
Well unfortunately I don't have it with me, but we've been starting to go down the discussion of the fiscal analysis for Safer Seward and this was a project that was in the MTP at one point had been pulled out of the MTP. And so we're working on trying, we're working with the project team to try and break down the financial fiscal fixture of this. This project's gonna require a fiscal plan that Federal Highways is gonna have to approve. So I'm gonna try and get, I was hoping to get this to you guys before the meeting, but it's been very hectic for the last few days. So the intent is to try and get this back to you all. I anticipate that if it doesn't come up here, it would be definitely coming up at policy that this project gets added back into the MTP. So I'm not sure exactly how to do this, but because we don't have the fiscal analysis right now to give to you guys, but at some point it's gotta be, we need to have that conversation. So I'll try and get it to you here as soon as I can. So it's ready for discussion of policy, but I didn't want to just bypass this group and all of you without bringing that up and having that conversation at least as a group. So, and then I don't know if we got everything to you, if you're comfortable with everything from the Seward to Glenn PEL. Granted
Didn't, I'm just making sure you got everything from us on the Seward to Glen PEL. Thank you. I'm gonna work on trying to get you guys the, the fiscal analysis on safer Seward. I don't know what kind of amendment we're adding to this, but it's no on record. Yeah. All right. Move to add a placeholder line item in the MTP Complete Streets projects list to cover suite of projects for the Safer Seward project. Information to follow in advance of distribution of the policy committee agenda details on fiscal constraint.
Motion seconded by Member White, I guess, do you guys have jotted down what that motion, what the amendment was? Had a placeholder for Complete Streets project list to cover the Safer Seward suite of projects and then to be provided in advance of the policy committee meeting as much as possible. Information about the fiscal analysis. Any discussion on that? The amendment A member?
I guess two questions. The one is, is there any idea how much that project has cost so far? Is there any ation of any of that? Any is participate with participatory or not? And then I guess to add something back in that was that project already, did it already go through criteria and was already vetted and that sort of thing. I guess those are my three. I guess in terms of adding it to the TIP, I don't know if the participation on what's been spent to date necessarily relevant for our design funds that have been obligated here. It wasn't MTP at one point in time in terms of, sorry, what was the other? The first first one was is is there any idea, because we were talking about the fiscal analysis, just how much has been spent on that so far. The second one was did that ever get resolved?
If there was, that was gonna be refunded financial obligation. And then the third is what were the criteria for putting it in or removing it or I, because I don't know what the process is for, A project gets removed from the MTP and then gets put back in like I'm assuming that it got added in because it met a certain number of criteria it got removed because maybe it did meet those or something like that. So there's just an update there. I don't believe there's any criteria. That was, well go ahead Aaron if you'd like to.
Yes. Score projects are typically scored when they're added back into the mtt. So at the request of this group and the policy committee at the work session, we scored and ranked the Stanford Seward Highway project. It scored a one out of 120 possible points is one of the lowest scoring projects we have available. So that combined with the unknown about the fiscal assumptions and how it's gonna be paid for and the fact that FHWA is requiring us to include the entire project in our MTP, whereas in the past we only included the portion within the MPO boundary that is no longer allowed and no longer the case. We had a little bit of an error there and we got corrected from a technical standpoint as staff, there's some serious concerns about the fiscal assumptions for that project. The viability of that project doesn't meet any of our goals and objectives clearly by the scoring. So just gonna raise it and then I'll let it go because I don't think it is a viable project for us to be including in our MTP just based on that alone. No, thank you.
I was just gonna say, because we don't know the implications of adding that project because we don't have the cost, which projects would fall out? How many, it sounds like quite a few would've to fall out. I don't think we could take, I can't take action on that at this committee. I think if it's the intent of DOT to just go to the policy committee, they should just do that. But I think I can't make an informed decision here. So I would vote against the motion because of that. I appreciate that comment. I think, and that's the detail we need to provide, right is yeah, with a project of this magnitude, I mean 20 miles of highway right next to the inlet, right next to rock face, it's not a cheap project. This is something that we'd be looking at funding over decades so that we're not impacting the rest of the program. I think everybody gets a little hung up on the overall dollar amount, which is why I say that we'd be looking at a suite of projects here so that we can show how we deliver incremental improvements along the Seward Highway. And I think we all agree that there can be improvements to the Seward Highway South Anchorage. So I think that's, that's the detail that we owe, you know, the group to get this back into the MTP. Yeah,
No, I mean because, so schedule wise, our plan is, depending on what the policy committee does, we need to get this ready wrapped up in July to get it over out back to you all for August release for September public comment period, September October, public comment period. We have to do 45 days and then bring it back in December for final approval. So this is the opportunity right now to have it in the MTP and otherwise it's like an amendment process. Yeah, in future, yeah, you could do an amendment after the MTP is approved, you could do an amendment starting in, say we get it approved in December, you could start an amendment in January to amend the MTP to add the project in. Once the fiscal information is, say we don't get the fiscal, I don't know what it is, say we don't get the fiscal information now January can be the next amendment for the MTP, if that's what you were asking. Yes, there's discussion on the amendment.
I'll just note that the, you know, finding where we have a series of advisory commissions and they give us, occasionally items go to them and they provide feedback. The Historic Preservation Commission did look into that project and I think they had some concerns about the section 1 0 6 process and I, I don't know the details because I, I don't follow very closely, but their letter is posted. I think they respondent, but they, they raised some concern about 106. So I don't know if that relates to this or if it could go in or not, but it does seem like it would ni be nice. They seem to be asking some questions about getting those, just from my perspective it's kind of unclear where that stands without kind of like Mr. Rudolph all the, the fiscal piece and some concerns about whether the section 106 consultation through as it's supposed to. So just a little bit of, a lot of gray there.
That's probably, probably in order for this there a voice objection so, or possible. So we would want to do that. Do you mind managing that? Not at all? Okay. We'll go ahead and started Member Dawoud? On the amendment to add a placeholder to the Complete Streets project list for the suite of Safer Seward Highway projects and then getting the fiscal analysis and advance of the policy committee meeting as much as possible. How do you vote? Yes. Member Alimi?
Member Keegan? Yes. Member White? Yes. Member Coy? No. Member Kohlhaas? No. Member Rudolph? No. Okay. Sorry, I'm just typing yours names as I'm doing it. Member Daniel McKenna Foster for Member. Babb? No. Okay. 6 to 5. Is that what I, is that what is Okay. It passes. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any other amendments?
For, sorry. Marathon here on the Complete Streets. Well, I guess I'll just make a motion. Yeah. So move to amend Complete Streets project list item 89 to increase the fiscal constraint from 32 million to 80. Speak a little bit on this. So this is the old Seward Highway, O'Malley to Dimond Project. Been doing a lot of stakeholder engagement looking at fiscal constraint there within the 32 million that been in the, in the UCP. I know there has been some interest in one of the many versions of the 97 under in there and understand that adding, adding the additional funding there would allow us to pursue that further as we go into more public enrollment on this project. So one of the, open that up for discussion and also helps with the, the available funds there for DOT projects, both short term and long
You say 32 million to 89 million. 80. 80 million. Sorry. Thank you. That's number 89. Have a motion. We have a second. Second. A motion by Member Bowland. A seconded by Member White to change project 89 to 80 million. Any discussion on on that item? Are there any opposed to that amendment being incorporated in the hearing? None That amendment is incorporated in, and I'm remembering that I don't know if we've made the motion yet to move projects to make space for the PEL. So that's the short term ones that you listed, Aaron, moving those to long term. We did that as part of the motion for previous motion where we talked about making the changes for the non-motorized ones or we listed out the four. Is that the one you're talking about? Or on the complete streets list. Oh, okay. So where on the hider streets?
When we, the Hyder street we did that as part of that motion. We, we included moving all the short terms for long term. Wait, I think you all are talking about two different, you're talking about Hyder but you're talking about freeing up the 30 million. Correct. Which is the Hyder, the non-motorized. Oh sorry. Yes. Right. So we did that as part of that where we talked about move out the projects discussed earlier. Okay. So that was in the motion. I have that written down. I don't know if you do or not. If not, then we can do another motion. Just to be clear. I don't recall it being part of the motion but Okay. I might do, let's do another amendment just in case. Okay. So entertain it. And this was where we talked about an error listed project 57, 58, 59 and for a number that were getting moved. So that's one that we probably don't need to list them all again right now, but we could say it's discussed earlier. I discussed as I pointed out earlier, and then Rhiannon pointed out the long term ones, which are still, I mean that 30.8 million from short term, long term and long term to that C. Correct. Yeah. Another, so move as discussed earlier. Move by Member White. Do you have a second? Okay. Second by Member Bowland. Do we have any object or any discussion on that? Okay. Any objections to making that amendment?
Hearing none. That amendment is incorporated in the motion. Maybe for the second time, but maybe not sure It's got, yeah, double make sure we're good. Okay. Are there any other amendments even though we didn't do like each project individually, we, we might have still set a record up number. Yes, we definitely did. Do set a number? We have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. I have nine amendments somewhere around there. Okay. So that is a record. One more amendment more. Okay. 10. Okay. Okay. Are there any other amendments? Okay, hearing none. And we have the motion as amended before us. Are there any objections to approving the motion as amended?
Okay. Hearing then that motion is approved. Staff will have a busy day trying to get all those incorporated in. Thank you. Well all we're gonna do is just put it in the memo. We don't actually make any of the changes so we gotta get it done here in two hours. Okay, sounds good. So we'll now move on to action item by C and i street rehabilitation project presentation by the project team. I believe you guys have it on your iPads if you're interested, we'll also be on the screen. Good. Turn over to the product team.
Oh, real quick before you go quick, just remember that this was originally an AMATS preservation project. That the policy can move into a larger scale. You know, you guys will talk about it late and I don won't wanna take too much time. So just keep that in mind that you have seen this before, some of this information before, but our team is presenting on it 'cause they actually have direction of themes. Thank you, I appreciate it. Thank you. Hi everybody. My name is Joe Taylor Associates, a contract manager for this project. This really former payment preservation project talk box. The department's project manager, Ryan Harris and actually the project project manager Scott both here with me. I'm gonna go through these really quick 'cause this, as Aaron said, you guys have seen all these slides. Everybody knows we had two separate payment preservation projects a year ago. We provided an update on those. There's the limits next slide.
On the existing conditions. We talked about that last year. There was a reason that there was a pave preservation project, the roads are deteriorating and we had documents of Russ preface and things of that nature. Here's pictures on L Street. The next slide is I street similar ruts running. The next slide we presented last year, we were talking about a number of deficiencies that we had identified in our work payment preservation proper, but we had also done a pretty comprehensive inventory on curb ramps failed a bunch of 'em. There was 108 curb ramps that we had inventoried and some a DA non-compliant deficiencies that that we presented on. So in our next slide when we updated this group previously we had said, Hey, here's these two projects. We are at about 75% design plans and a hand level on a pavement preservation proper project. But as we were identifying these deficiencies and working on it with the state and ourselves and the city, we sort of started identifying things that were outside of the payment preservation but were pretty easy to do on the project.
Some things that were a little bit more of a stretch. So we were asked last year to come before you and develop menu of alternatives. We had three here was the basic improvement and then the next slide we showed was sort of what we called the basic improvement plus a little bit. And that was focused on a DA upgrades. We were working on driveways, sidewalks, widening sidewalks, audible push buttons, sort of pretty easy additions to the payment preservation we cost of that. The next option showed was another variant of that where we did payment preservation plus a DA upgrades. But this one worked on some signals, some cameras, radar detection flash and yellow arrow sort of improvements that the city and state both thought were desirable. It costed that. And then we got to option four was kind of the big, the big part of our presentation last year was hay.
We also have this option that is a reallocation of the right of way, the repurposing of the space. Essentially a lane reduction or a load reallocation. And we had worked through some preliminary design on that. Presented it, costed it. About that time the, the project team sort of realized, hey, there's a corridor study, Minnesota tribe corridor study that's being undertaken by the department and they're working on both I and L as well. So this project paused, essentially it has been penciled down for about a year as that planning process worked its way through to see what came out of that. And so next slide, just a quick section of what, what that option four was repurposed use of the right of way. And that's fine. The next slide is really the purpose of our meeting today. So the, the draft of the plan for the corridor plan has been provided to the department and they've shared that with, so this is a really a beautiful graphic that that project did that sort of summarizes what they drafted the recommendations in INL.
And you can go through it and read sort of the, the specific words. There's some recommended stuff there is things to consider. But essentially here on I street, the recommendation is to go with that option for sort of repurposing of the right of way and then add a number of other amenities that our next slide actually shows that we had developed pretty closely as part of our menu work. So not a huge surprise that the department and the city were working on the door door plan guiding the design team on the development of the menu. The plan gets drafted and it says pretty much what net four looked like. I think everybody expected that. I don't think we presented this design last year. We had had snippets that showed the costing and the line work behind it. But we have developed this option for lane reallocation to a, a pretty detailed level.
This is I street the next slide. So this next slide is really what we've done is we've looked at our menu for design work that was done with the pavement preservation. We've gone through the draft of the corridor plan and we've identified on the left you can see recommended alternative rightaway, lane reallocation design considerations. Those are coming from the corridor plan that we're highlighting the element. And then we have check boxes where option four meets plan and essentially it meets the plan everywhere with a few caveats that we're showing in green and blue there. There's a little bit of additional studies needed to implement a few of the R FBS rectangular rapid flash and beacons or or other amenities. And then at the bottom we have this additional considerations. So we had these baked into the menu. They're pretty, pretty detailed honestly. And our read of the plan didn't have those elements but we did wanna highlight those.
A lot of it's storm drain, we're doing that right now. You'll see guys out we're actually cleaning and reinspecting the storm crane this week working on that. So we've got kind of three little edits at the bottom that were in the menu that aren't in the plan. Next slide is a essentially a restatement of what I just presented, but for L Street that recommendation as well was a right of way reallocation. This graphic shows what that plan shows on our next slide, this is the design that we prepared about a year ago to back up our menu. And then on our next slide, same thing for comparing contrast and highlight what's in the plan versus what was in the design work. That got us to our menu with a few little edits here. So there's a couple little studies that would need to be done to implement a few of those things, but for the most part they're, they're kind of one to one square edits at the bottom you can see on the additional considerations.
So the big ask for the purpose of why we're here today I guess is to show this schedule and then you know, kind of talk about next steps. So where we are right now on the pavement preservation project is we turned in 75% and maybe about a year ago. And then those weren't circulated. Those have been paused and stuck as everybody knew this work was coming. But got that to about 75% getting close to final surveying. We're doing a little bit of more inspection and cleaning up some ts and some work there. That's about 75. The menu option four slides that I just presented are laid out in pretty good detail. I mean about the 25% design level is 25 to 30 is kind of how we got to that cost estimate. So if you take that 25 30% design, you put it on top of the pave preservation work, which includes all the survey, all the drainage work that design.
So probably about halfway there project's probably about halfway there with implementing I and L final design. So if we picked up tools today and started pivoting towards that project, this slide demonstrates that, you know, we feel we could get to maybe plans in hand on that project by the end of year and then we are gonna have some right of way issues. We found a few curb ramps maybe on on one side of the right of way line and maybe some improvements on the other that have to be sorted out and we gotta work through that. That has a time component. But if we were picking up that piece after plans in hand in early 27, we could have a construction project at 28. We don't have permission to to move that way. And so I think our big ask here is to, can we pick up pools and and pivot that way or should we continue to pause or, or where are we going with the project? Any additional? No,
That was great. Yeah, we're really needing concurrence from you and from the policy committee on being able to move forward with the newly named tip project. The new scope that the, that we're showing in the tip as it's aligning with what we're seeing in the draft corridor plan, which we should be seeing a final quarter plan. I don't wanna speak for the the team working on that, but I believe it was next month or so. But again, at this point we have been told to pause by the policy committee and so we're just looking for a concurrence to be able to move forward again as we've demonstrated that our project many options aligns with what the corridor plan is showing also. So we're just going that occurrence for you guys and the policy committee.
Impacts, would it be the kind of thing where you take a little bit or would it be at least from what you can tell so far, I'm assuming the right of impacts mean taking some of the private property. Is there anything actually knocking down a building
Or anything like that? Or, the one that jumps out to my mind actually is the other way where there might be some curb ramps on the, on the wrong side of the line that gotta get moved. Oh really? And so it's sort of the reverse encroachment if you will, that we have to pick through. If you were to repurpose that right away and reuse that space. I mean trying to hold a curb line, it's been one of the big things and just pull one lane in and that makes everything much faster and easier to accomplish. If you are moving a lane though, you've got some room in the design to, to work through that stuff. Are there questions or comments? Go ahead, member floss.
I'd like to know more about the on street parking, what you've heard from the corridor study, you know, especially like what is the Lewis and HP level of the roadway and I don't know, like if for example, is the intent to have driveway access maintained on roadway and available parking or do they, many of the properties already take access from a different side street or a different street? That's, I was a little surprised to see it, but, but if that's what the community wants, I'd like to just know more about that.
The honest answer to that is it's a bit of an enigma. The, the report is really clear in that it puts that in a bucket that it says design consideration, it says consider this. It doesn't make a strong statement about it. It's exactly what we do. The menus, we said here's an option that can happen on street parking, but you don't have to. So I don't think anybody has like put pencil of paper and made a strong statement about that. It's just been identified that this has to be worked through and design.
Yeah, no, it said the study says this should be considered in design and I think the menu four included it because it was the most expensive option, if you will. So we were trying to be conservative with the costing, but no one's committed to to the position. Okay. Driveways, the intent would be everywhere that a driveway needs to be moved to a side street with a project like this you would do though, similar to how we're managing access everywhere else. So there'll be a design process where there'll be a chance to look at and make decisions on On street parking. Yeah, the project pivots to implementing that corridor plan, it's gonna start a new phase of design. So right now the design has been conceptually what we did to kind of cost this at like the 25% level plus pavement preservation in great detail. And so we have better detail for pavement preservation than driveway relocation for answers like that.
So those would have to catch up. That's what we would hope to catch up by the end of the year. Okay. And some of the bike facilities and what those might look like, there's still opportunity through this design effort to look at what options are. This is just starting to move over forward into that? Or is that kind of, because it looks like it provides two options. It says shared lane or protected bike lane. Yeah, those are, so that's coming out of the corridor plan. We, yeah, thank you for going back to that. We had some typicals in there. We basically, we just took a position, I think it was, I think it was like 10 feet behind the curb. I can't it, you decided to pick something to get a cost in there, but there's been no commitment to what that might look like. Yeah. So to in answer your question, a hundred percent opportunity to pick that up, be sort of a picking up tools on the design. Yeah, sounds good. Got a question of thoughts. And I can say those when we have design discussion, just knowing it's in a downtown after business, she can't bike on the sidewalk, but seeing how Minneapolis kind of somehow some of the things they, they did got thought, but I won't go there right now. So that'll be good to have at that later point.
The moment to I tap out and admit I don't, I don't know the answer to that one. I don't know the answer to that one either. I don't think we, that usually comes kind of through you guys too. This would, if this was reclassified though, that wouldn't throw this right away. Reallocation out for example. It would still fall under what we could handle for a couplet in a lower classification growth. Sorry, add that one better.
Think with the progress of the corridor plan coming along and getting good engagement with from stakeholders and public and all functional departments to weigh in on what that's looking like, it, it seems like a good point to start un pausing and, and getting, if you have a target for delivery.
Great. I I would add to that, that our schedule is two years from a slide that we showed. It was two years from plans in hand at the end of this year. Right. So that puts you deep into 2028. So there's a, there's a little window for that construction year and then we're into the next construction year. Looks like Juan Lee has her hand up to respond to the, with the presentation or answers your questions.
Yeah. Hi everyone. Thank you Brad. There's a bit of an echo but it's Van Le with R&M. We are supporting the Department of Transportation on the Minnesota and INL street quarter plan. We've had that plan out for public comment for 45 days since April 14th. We just closed the comment, public comment period on May 29th. And we received roughly 30 public comments including resolutions from the different community councils. But Joe is right, we're wrapping up the final comments responses and we should have the final plan by the end of June for the department to take through the internal DOT approval process. And then I do wanna answer Melinda's question about the on street parking. There is currently existing on street parking in the downtown I and L street section section. We are not recommending removing that on street parking, but that we are recommending the design team continue to consider the on street parking as the lane reallocation design moves forward.
Go ahead. Can I just ask why does it, I assume there's not many right away acquisition, but so why does it take a year I guess for right away? Great question. I'll try to answer this the way I always hear it answered. It is a process that's not a function of the number of impacts or, you know, if 30 impacts are one impact, take this process that has a timeline associated with it, is the way it's always explained to me. I I'll also say that that 24 months, that always gets used as a, as an estimator in the schedule that that's not always used, but it's a, it is fairly safe. It's not gonna be six or eight probably. Yeah, I can add some more detail to that too. I mean, in that process we've got a plating effort that has to get approved to
Specify the, the boundaries of any acquisitions that we have there. We've got appraisals that we have to contract out. We also have a review appraisal requirements. So those are two contracted actions that we have. We get the appraisal and then we have that vetted by another licensed appraisal. It's not a typical appraisal that we go through either. It's one that's has to support any actions that could pursue down in imminent domain. So it's, it's a more involved appraisal than a typical home. Most folks would be more familiar but, and then it's getting offers out, it's negotiating, it's all that that that goes into purchasing something that somebody wasn't actively trying to sell.
Okay. Are there questions or comments? Any, okay. We'll take some comments from the public. Any number of the public like to have a comment on this item. I see none online or in the room. What is the will of the committee? Don't think so, but this isn't quite a stone move item. So this item is to the, the ask is to recommend to the policy committee to direct, direct the project team to move forward with the project based on the current discourse tip description and include input from the Minnesota IL corridor plan.
Yep. Move by Member Bowland. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Member White. Any discussion or amendments? Are there any opposed to the motion? Okay, hearing none, that motion is approved. Thank you for coming and presenting and it'll now be the next item on our agenda is item. We're now moving to the discretionary grant application letter item five B. Yes. Before you is a request for a letter. Department of transportation is looking at seeking an AOP, which is aquatic organism passage grant. I love, I love the acronym. Just so you know, we have supported past efforts by DOT and the native tribal or native village, sorry, for an AOP grant that they wanted at the time. So this is not the first time we've seen something come through. This is to work on culverts for the Seward Highway Rabbit Creek area. So I think there's three culverts that need to be replaced. I believe as of explained by the railroad, they had culverts as well that were replaced by a bridge instead of culverts. So now DOT is working on trying to get the culverts replaced under the highway. So this letter is before you today, staff reviewed it recommends support of this to the policy committee and of course DOT can fill in anything I've got wrong. Thank you. Thank you Aaron. Is there any questions or comments from the committee?
Mr. Just apologize that it came in before the agenda went out. We had 45 days to get our application and everything submitted. So I figured if we waited until we could run this through the normal process, we'd already have to submit it. So anyway. Yeah, discretionary grants are driving me crazy.
Okay. Move by Member Kohlhaas. Second by member Rudolph. Are there any discussion or amendment? Okay, hearing none are there, are there any opposed to approving this motion? Hearing none, this mo the motion is approved and that finishes up our action items. Now we're on to our information items. We have items six a roadmap for AMATS. Yes. So as you know, this is a kind of a standing item because there's been some request by the chair of the policy committee to have this on there. As you see that there is a letter that was provided to the policy committee, I also provided it to the TAC and it was posted on our agenda with some concerns regarding the AMATS boundary and some items that need to still be reviewed and decided upon by amass on how to move forward. So it's here before you for information at this time. There's no action, it's just if you have any questions, comments, or concerns, it's before you. Thank you. Okay, thank you Aaron. Other questions or comments from the committee? Go ahead, member White.
So I think what you have here is the department's issues with the, with the boundary that they'd like to discuss further. And so our intent here is to try and capture any additional feedback, any comments, concerns from y'all that you may have. This will go to policy next week. We'll get their opinion on it, but I believe the intent is to bring this back for an action item at a, at a future future meeting. So I think the intent is to try and bring this back in in July as an action item so that we can hash through a revised version of this based on comments and feedback from everybody. And we've got, we've got maps and drawings and, and all of that kind of stuff that we could go through as well at that time. But we're trying to coalesce everything right now and put together sort of a discussion for everyone.
I, I'm, this is always kind of confusing. Could, could someone just explain like what the problem is here and what, especially for the public too, just so like what, what is the deal with this? Like what is the issue and what are the sort of two sides of this problem? I guess in like a explain like I'm five years old basically. So after every census, the Census Bureau categorizes an urbanized area. MPOs are then required to go back in and, and update their boundary based on the new urbanized parameters. So there's always an update to the boundary. We've gone through, I think, correct me if I'm wrong Aaron, but in 2024 after we got the Census bureau data, we went in and revised the current boundary and it's been discussed and debated and brought back and forth I think two or three times to this committee and policy to get approval.
So once the boundaries approved by policy, then the governor, the governor's office will then concur, approve and move it on to federal highways for formal formal approval. And so it's a joint effort between the governor and the MPO to get an approved boundary in place. And we've got till December 31st to get this boundary approved. And so there's been a lot of back and forth on, from the governor's office and, and everywhere of what exactly we want to see in the boundary. And so this boundary that we did, we, we smoothed out, we roughed out some of the, the zigzags and ins and outs and then there's been some concern with some encroachment into the state park. And so that's been some of the concern and discussion that we've had internally with department of law. Our department of law and commissioner's office is just some of those areas that we tried to smooth some things out.
We've got roads that zigzag back and forth in, in and out of the boundary. And so the intent was to try and smooth it out so that, and I'll just throw Highland Road in Eagle River is one example where the road kind of went, the road was there but the boundary went in and out. So sometimes some portions of it were in the boundary, some of it wasn't. So we tried to smooth that out and so we've just, the department started to look at some of the GIS and some of the, and so there's just a few little minor tweaks here and there. And also we wanted to have a conversation with DNR parks about the boundary and everything. So I think the letter tried to outline exactly what some of the concerns were coming from the commissioner's office. So, so that's kinda where we're at now is we, we we have a boundary that's gone through, it's been approved by policy but it has not been blessed by the governor.
No, it was pretty minor. And when we talked about smoothing, we actually worked with DOT to smooth out the boundary. So DOT was involved in the development of this boundary. We also had it reviewed by FHWA who provided us some errors that we needed to correct, we corrected it. So that's why it went through and was eventually approved by the policy committee 'cause we had done our requirements for coordination to work with everybody. So there's an approved boundary from the policy? Yes. Has that been kind of boarded on, confirmed by the governor yet? Correct. So it's in this limbo and needs to get through the approval that the DOT has some additional concerns of that, of that state of the boundary and is looking at some additional changes.
We're just providing the information today, but we do intend to bring back an action item at a future date because we have to get a boundary, we have to get the boundary approved and we have to find a way to get it through the governor's office. So we, we as the TAC or the policy committee or DOT or DOT and working in collaboration with the MPO, we've gotta find a way to get it off high center.
Yeah, sounds good. Are there other questions or comments from the committee? Any any, anything from staff that we need to be thinking of or aware of on this? Yeah, so we didn't go into great detail reviewing this, but this is the same stuff we've been hearing for over a year now. So nothing new little concerned with some of the language used in here. It seems to contradict itself between what it talks about, talks about the importance of having coordination with the MPO but then it says certain portions shouldn't be in the MPO boundary because it would require more coordination. Most notably with DNR parks, we still have yet to actually hear from DNR or parks directly what their concerns are with our boundary. We have nothing in writing. There has been no meeting with AMATS itself. While it appears that others have met with DNR, they do not represent AMATS.
AMATS is the policy committee where the TAC or staff. So it'd be nice if we had a meeting with DNR to hear what their concerns were. We have a weird statement in here about avoid NHS interstate mileage solely on the basis of corridor significance. That's why a corridor would be included in our boundaries because it's a significant corridor like the Glenn Highway and the Seward Highway, the only connections in and out of our foundry. They are the most important corridor for us to be considering in our planning process. So it's a little strange what some of the language is in here and it says that it should be limited to what's gonna be urbanized within the 20 next 20 years. That is not a federal requirement. That is the minimum. We can go above and beyond that if there's justification for it. So yeah, it's, it's a lot really. But nothing more than what we've already heard.
All of these sections of the highways are within the municipal boundaries. Correct. They're within the municipality Anchorage boundaries. We're not recommending our boundary as an MPO go above and beyond. I'll, I'll be honest with you, when you look at the boundary from AMATS, it hasn't changed much since we were incorporated in 1976. Even when you go back to like the 2002 boundary that we did, it's basically the same. The small amount that we did with this was to smooth it out to make things a little bit more easy to understand. Or for example, the Glenn Highway, half of it was in our boundary half wasn't because of the GIS layer error. And by half you mean like the northbound was and southbound wasn't sort of, yes. So like the west side was in the east side was out and so it was like, well should be all the way in. So we were kind of cleaning that up or the Highland interchange, three of the four quadrants were in the southeast quadrant was out. So it was like, well maybe we should include it all the way in. So yeah, I think more information would be nice about the concerns with DNR and then other stuff would be helpful.
I, I guess it's, I, I still don't, I don't think I could explain this to a five-year-old side, but I also still don't believe it. I guess I, but I'm going to the, the, the comment that we're high centered to say we're high centered I guess who's driving the vehicle then? Like who got us high centered and who's in the driver's seat to get us un high centered out of this. If you comment or staff's comments about that sounds to me like if Ammas approved, the boundary policy committee approved the boundary. So I guess if there's any who's in the driver's seat and can we just keep driving it? I get us on high centered it sounds like. I think what we need to do is find a solution to get commissioner comfortable to get it to the governor to get governor's approval.
I think at the end of the day you got a memo here that until I see it actually on a map where we can say this is the line that needs to move from here to here. It's tough to do. You know what we need to do to evaluate the proposed changes. So getting that on as an action item so we can walk through in detail what proposed changes
Are desired, that's that's the next step. And get this off of a per special agenda item and and get it behind us. Have more definitive discussion and instead of trying to wonder, actually I have something on that. The challenge you're gonna breach is you may not have enough time in a regular meeting because we have other things going on. So just kind of keep that in mind if you want it as an action item at the next meeting. We have other things we have to bring in that get approval and as you can see our meetings typically go to the end minute. So my recommendation would be maybe a work session in soon as we can to sit down with everybody and be like what are the changes we are looking at here? What are those from DOT that and what it would look like for our overall boundary.
Because then that gives you guys the opportunity to ask questions and if there's more information you need that can help you, I'd hate for it to come in July, not have enough time to actually ask your questions to get that kind of engagement and then not get anything approved and then have to come back and all like just keep coming back through that. So I'd recommend a work session, we can set that up as soon as possible if there is interest. And just as a reminder, we have three minutes left of meeting. Sorry, maybe that's conversation policy committee. We can, we can approve a part of a boundary and do amendments amend in maybe, I don't know if we get at least 10 we can like, yeah, we can do good. Okay. Well I entertain a motion to extend the meeting by five minutes if we want to cover the last item on here or are we pretty sure we can just, I can do it in 30 seconds.
Okay. I guess. So we'll move on then to item 60 AMATS quarterly project update. Okay. Quarterly project update is before you, this is through March 31st, 2026. So realize that it's not to the current second, but it is based on quarterly updates. Mark Eisenman has been gracious enough to take over helping to update this while James is off saving the world. And so we're very happy to have the assistance. Thank you Mark. So it's here before you so you can see where the project statuses are. Thank you. Okay, perfect. Thanks Aaron. We have one more minute. Are there any members of the public that would like to comment on information items? Okay, see none. We're gonna move on to, let's see, I mean we got less than a minute. Literally. Are there any members of the committee that have an urgent comment you would like to make? Just thank Mark for his time putting together the obligation report. Thanks Mark. Other comments? Okay. Any members of the public who would like to comment on general items? Okay, hearing none, we are now on Adur all this meeting, And 259 record number of amendments and we finished on time. Wow.
This is hidden text that lets us know when google translate runs.